Can God love?

[Whateverist]

 
God does accept people as they are, it doesn't matter your condition. What matters is you are wanting a change and God wants to be there to guide you through the change. God accepted me as I was and accepts me as I am now, His love has rang true in my life because I wanted it.

Agape... with conditions.  Sorry, GC, it doesn't work that way.  If he doesn't accept me unless I want to change, then he doesn't truly accept me.  Your complaint is ridiculous on the face of it.  What if you said to your wife, "I accept you as you are, but only if you're willing to change"?  That would be pure hypocrisy.

Yep, a boob job and a facelift ought to do it.

[KevinM1]

You are talking about different things like they are one. God loves you no matter what you do or what condition you are in. It is his Holiness that can't accommodate sin that has not been atoned for. It is his Justice the defines the punishment for lacking that atonement at the end of your life.

That sounds like he's the one that needs to change. Not us.

Sin is such an idiotic concept. That anyone with a functioning brain thinks it's real utterly baffles me.

"Here's something an omnipotent, omniscient being simply cannot abide, described in only the vaguest of terms (and just so happening to coincide with tribal needs). Something that can only be atoned for if you believe this omnipotent, omniscient being sent himself down as his own son to live as and ultimately be sacrificed by man for the good of man."

It's pants on head territory. And the contortions used to justify it would make Hideo Kojima blush.

[Drich]

I'm not sure why we should care about outdated definitions of love. We've changed as a society to the point where if it doesn't fit the way we see love, then why should we want it?

because those out dated definitions are how the word was used to describe more accurately what God has offered.

For instance if I said my family had a gay olde time at the park in the 1960's would it be then correct to apply the modern day definition to what was said? No if you are translating 1960 dialect you must use the 1960 defination.

Like wise if you are speaking of another culture who's has several different word that in the more primitive modern english gets translated into a single word then one must make a provision to understand the sub-definition of the one word translation.

The only way you can rightfully ignore the old definition is to openly drop the 'truth' from your debate ,and seek a facade that covers your true purpose here.

---

I doubt that love has changed much in the past 50k years, lol. The deeply humanist message of the new testament, otoh, has changed drastically in the last 60.

then the picture is complete. the avatar with the side shaved mullet, the closed minded approach to the way you think thinks should be the exclusion of evidence and truth to the benefit of your personal definitions.

Or you can educate yourself:

http://www.hipgreece.com/the-ancient-gre...-love.html

There are 6 forms or six word in the ancient greek that all get translated into the single english word, 'love.'

philo
eros
ludus
agape
pragma
storge'

All of these words in the ancient greek get translated into one single word in the english that word is love. 

So why did the greeks have so many different words for love? each word described a small portion of the broader word. our love is all encompassing, the greek word is subdivided meaning that love was often awarded in one or two catagories at a time very few people could obtain all or complete love. for example eros is passion while phila was long standing battle harden love for friends and family. the two forms did not mix. Agape is also a word that does not mix with physical or emotional standards. Agape is honor duty charity respect.

So rather than say God is a big ball of feeling and puty, God is the oppsite when the word agape is applied.

---

What you 'good people' don't get is if you are too proud to simply seek atonement you are actively working for sin, as such there is no difference between you and an isis fighter seeking to destroy what does not align itself with their religious views.

Really ISIS? There is difference between me and ISIS. I don't believe in Allah or any god and also don't kill people and bomb cities. The only thing I do is showing you that your religion is wrong by writing on the internet, but you're too big of a snowflake to handle it.

you also enjoy a good measure of popular morality and try and force it on to all religions. Pop culture is your God 'human rights' is your bible pop culture is your church. forcing the religious to accept homosexuality and the destruction of the family through gay marriage, divorce, and abortion is your 'great commission.'

You may not serve allah but you do serve man as your master which is steeped in the same sin ISIS is just to the extreme left instead of the extreme right.

You are only different because you are radical left instead of radical right. even so you share all the same markers.

---

---

And theoretical science isn't? 

Here get this: 100 trillion years ago there was nothing except in the center of what would be a the known universe. and in that center was a basket ball... a basket ball solid of course because in that basket ball contained all matter all planets all oceans all stars everything! then it exploded the uncaused cause for no reason despite what would be an unfathomable amount of gravity caused an outward explosion!!

And all the small minds said amen, tell me more because that is soooo much more plausible than any part of creation.

I don't think I said a thing about science but thanks for trying to play the science card incorrectly.

And yes, while only a theory, it is immensely more plausible and amenable to change as we understand more.

like a basket ball exploding being an uncaused cause.. do you understand that term? uncaused cause? that is the 'science' shame phrase used to call out all people of faith when they can no go back any further in their explanation as to what caused creation, in essence in the religious terms "god did it" is the uncaused cause... I am saying you exploding basket ball is the scientific version of the uncaused cause. Now because 'science' has an uncaused cause as religion does, tell me some more how "immensely more plausible and amenable science is" tell me more about how I am applying science wrong even though it follows the patterns of faith almost identically.

---

There has never been a moment in all of human history that a person has claimed that a wizard did something as anything other than a vocal expression of the fact that they have absolutely no clue.  

"More plausible" doesn;t even approach the reality of the matter.   The wizard explanation has the constant handicap of having been idiotically false at every turn, for everything, at all times.  Even the religious have come to understand this...with the exception of a vanishingly small number of dimwitted retrogrades..as they attempt to coopt all of the better explanations that those retrogrades find implausible.

and the exploding basket ball?

what caused the explosion? how did all matter fit in that space? would the gravity of the mass keep it from an outward explosion?

Would it be more plausible that the 'wizard'/Alien/transdimensional being blew up said basketball?

[Drich]

Rob maybe read this slowly a few more times...

Emjay you've hit the nail on the head.

Think of Agape' to start with as the 'respect' one has for very valued employee.. then image how that relationship changes over time and the employee becomes like a son, and respect and love develops over time sometimes even strong than a father son mother daughter relationship could ever, because these two being elect to serve and honor one another. one looking out for the other. sadly not every paternal relationship works out this way. now imagine a life time of serving the same man/family or rather look at how joseph (coat of many colors ) served pharaoh by interpreting his dreams and helped egypt through feast times and famine to the point egypt became the most wealthy buying out other countries riches for the grain joseph had them store up. then at the end of all that look at how Joseph was rewarded for his service. he was placed in charge of all of egypt. the only one who had say over joseph was pharaoh himself. but it was joseph who was sat on the throne and ruled the nation of egypt.

The respect given to joseph by pharaoh was a form of agape love. in how agape is manifest pharaoh could literally not give joseph any more and still be pharaoh. God offers the same thing based on our understanding and our talents and abilities. God's agape is to form a life tailor made for you and to suit your strengths and challenge your weaknesses to bring you up to a standard so that when you pass on you can continue to serve in the most satisfying and perfect way.

I believe all other forms of 'love' are secondary or substitutes for agape. because once you experience true agape you will know that is what we were orginally designed for. that agape is what is missing in all of our lives. Pure agape can only be sourced by God. in this life we get a vibe or strong feeling of love from God from time to time, but never get to feel the all encomassing submersion.. the closest is baptism in a day to day believer's life. (which don't get me wrong is extremely strong sense of love) it's just God has so much more to give.

The problem is, that's not the impression I'm getting about what agape is from what I'm reading (but as I said, so far). Ie as I understand it, it's not a love based on attachment... because attachment implies fear of/aversion to abandonment/loss... ie attachment is the 'eternal good' part. So a relationship developing over time and resulting in closer bonds as you describe smacks to me of 'erosic' love rather than agapic love. And respect as you describe it for an employer/employee relationship still implies a value-judgement to me; ie if I employ someone, I'll respect their autonomy but only up to a point; if they start being disruptive I may fire them and conversely if they work well I may promote them. So the standard of measure... value... in that case is whether they're a good employee or not.

So as I understand it, if God's agape is not based on merit (ie value)... ie the righteous and sinners are equally 'agaped' simply on account that their acts, whether good or bad, are not a factor in this love... then it is hard to see what agape means in any meaningful and relatable sense to humanly experienced love or how there could be any kind of deepening relationship between the two. In other words, it seems a highly impersonal form of love.

you are only looking at one side of the examle. you even said that if an employee did wrong you would fire them. agape is not about rewards as much as it is about commitment it is about sticking with a person thick thin good or bad, because you've made the commitment to do so. 1 cor 13 paul give his person break down of agape.
If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 And if I have aprophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, bso as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3 cIf I give away all I have, and dif I deliver up my body to be burned,1 but have not love, I gain nothing.

4 eLove is patient and fkind; love gdoes not envy or boast; it his not arrogant 5 or rude. It idoes not insist on its own way; it jis not irritable or resentful;2 6 it kdoes not rejoice at wrongdoing, but lrejoices with the truth. 7 mLove bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, eendures all things.

8 Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For nwe know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but owhen the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. 11 When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways. 12 For pnow we see in a mirror dimly, but qthen face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as rI have been fully known.

13 So now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

In the description of love you do see reward but you also see alot of self sacrifice. Something required on both sides of the relationship.
In the employee senserio the agape is the patients to train up the employee in a position he would stand to benefit from. it's not the reward or benefical nature of the position that is the expression of love but the loss the owner or job provider will endure while the employee gets up to speed/learns the job. And over time it is the commitment to stick with this employee if he messes up alot. God does this when we convert and have nothing but good intentions but make mistakes just because we do not know the job, and agape covers us when later we becme luke warm ish and begin to back slide till we finally mature and fill the position as God intended. That is agape. it is not merrit based as more than likly we will not be able to live long enogh to 'make god money' in our application of the jobs we have. Yet God rewards us anyway. That is the difference between the agape I'm trying to describe and your recounting of it.

For instance, if God 'wants' your company in heaven and/or would feel 'sorrow' at the loss of your (as in anyone's) soul to hell, then that implies (to me) erosic love...

Yes revelation tells us once the door to hell is closed there will be a great morning for all who are lost. However the more we know/the more mature we become the less that feeling of loss can hold us. I know it is of little consolation now, but it would be like loosing your fav toy when you were 4 and loosing your favorite pen now. when you were four your fav toy could have been akin to loosing a friend or even limb. and now while yes you may really liked that pen and you may think about it from time to time you understand the nature of loosing things and can and will except it is gone. Especially if said pen were scientiant and choose to be separated from you and the world you chose to live in.

that would be an example of attachment or an 'eternal good' relative to God if he sought that, that God would lack if separated from your soul by it being in hell. But the only alternative I see is an 'attitude' more akin to 'meh'; eg agape as I understand it would be something like this; God: "meh, I love all you guys and respect your autonomy (ie free will) because I created you... I'm putting this offer of salvation out there, but I'm meh as to whether you take it or not. Indiscriminately I'll offer you all help in achieving that goal if you ask for it, but that should not be taken as favour or a personal attachment relationship, because ultimately I do not care whether you take it or not and I make the same offer to all." Is that what you mean by agape? If so it's not a deepening personal relationship as such and more akin... in the workplace... to the offer by employers of 'opportunities for career advancement' (as well as a code of conduct as grounds for dismissal). Respect but not attachment.

If i never read the bible and tried to peice together the nature of God and salvation this would be close to what I think I might have come up with n my own.

The bible however describes it several different ways. often time as a God being a rich man and us being servants/slaes or even as a richman who son is to be married and us as equals..

This is a combination of several parables.

Imagine God to be a very wealthy man who has rules for living on his land, but at the same time said enforcement of said rules would not come till you moved off the land, and no matter what at some point everyone would have to move off his land, and deal with the land owner privately to settle up.

Now the purpose of this was to gauge or prove to the people the nature of their own hearts. meaning the land owner wanted to prove to the people whether they loved him and all he provided, or if the loved themselves and took advantage when they thought he was not looking.

Now because all the people who live on the grace of the rich land owner never saw the immediate lash of the whip they all over time began to steal and break the rick land owners laws, and taught their children to also do so.

So the land owner sent several servant to speak on his behalf telling the people right from wrong, and the people revolted and beat and killed the servants/prophets.

Then the land owner sent his one and only son. Here is where the Agape' comes in. Knowing what they would do, to the son. the land owner took their evil intent and used the blood split for good. AS they both knew the land owner and son knew that only the blood of the son would be enough to cover the laws broken by the servants living on the land. That way the law ceased being the measure of whether or not people were rewarded/punished after they moved off the land. and it became about whether or not they chose to serve in this life and the next. they only caveat was you pay homage to the son's sacrifice, and to forgive as you have been forgiven.

There is no Meh when it costs a life to make the arrangements for the choice provided.

For God Agape is providing the choice and sticking with you when someone better could easily take your place. Agape is also extended to those who love their sin more, and God like the rest will lament on that day when all are sealed into the pit. but that's it because a choice was made. either serve God in His creation or serve self.

[Fake Messiah]

you also enjoy a good measure of popular morality and try and force it on to all religions. Pop culture is your God 'human rights' is your bible pop culture is your church. forcing the religious to accept homosexuality and the destruction of the family through gay marriage, divorce, and abortion is your 'great commission.'

LOL! Listen to this absurdity: because I stand for the opposite principles than ISIS I am like ISIS. It seems that you have much more in common with ISIS like you both hate gay people's right to marriage (if not even the mere existence of gays) and woman's rights.

[Drich]

A fictional being is only imbued with the characteristics bestowed upon it by its imaginative creator.

All this agape hooey is mere apologetic nonsense.

translation:Me no understand 
me not like
 I not smart 
me make fun of stuff and hope other not smarts like me make fun together

[The Grand Nudger]

So why did the greeks have so many different words for love? each word described a small portion of the broader word. our love is all encompassing, 

-and god;s isn;t..according to you... end of. Why waste time arguing yourself into agreement?

and the exploding basket ball?

what caused the explosion? how did all matter fit in that space? would the gravity of the mass keep it from an outward explosion?

Would it be more plausible that the 'wizard'/Alien/transdimensional being blew up said basketball?

Ignoring your idiotic phrasing of the question..we don;t know..and that has nothing to do with plausibility..its a statement of fact.   The grand wizard, on the other hand, is just as plausible as it;s ever been..which is to say... not at all.

[Drich]

"Agape (Ancient Greek ἀγάπη, agapē) is a Greco-Christian term referring to love ... as it embraces a universal, unconditional love that transcends and persists regardless of circumstance." ~ Wikipedia

And yet God cannot accept me as I am.  Doesn't sound like agape to me.  

Supposedly it's because of justice, yet the supposed king of agape said:

"If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also."

Something is amiss here.

What if "you" are not just you?

What if you are an amalgamation of several different things/beings?

What if you were made up of a body/mind, Spirit and Soul?

What if one or more of those things belong to satan?

Meaning what if by being born you body/mind were born into slavery/sin.

Mind/Body being the corporeal aspects of your being. the measurable anchor/avatar or physical host we have in this world and the mind is the physical device used to control the body.

Spirit=being the avatar's/physical host's primal will. a human being natural inclination, it's instinct it's logic it's corporeal reasoning.

The Soul= being the aspect or level of consciousness and understanding assigned to us by God. it is the part of us that has ultimate control over our avatars or bodies. it is the ghost in the machine it is the consciousness in the cloud that get up loaded into new hardware once this model is damaged or upgraded. 

So again what if the body and mind belong to satan when we are born unto this world, and because they are corrupt they also infect the Spirit who then like a zombie turn the soul against God.

So then who are you really? Jorge or a zombie snake monster looking to strike out and devour what you perceive as an enemy?

At best our souls say I do not want to sin, and demand our spirits to identify and resist sin to a degree. but according to Paul out bodies/minds are slaves to sin and will be till we die. one we die the bond sin has on use is over, so then upon our resurrection our min body spirit and souls call all live in unison. (That is all for God or All against God) but until then we are only at best 2/3 ourselves with 1/3 belonging to sin no matter what we do. If you are all against God now how much more when Satan will be present fueling the hatred you now have? Why should God love someone like that? do you love the idea of ISIS do you seek to love radicalized ISIS fighters? how different will you be to God once Satan fuels your hatred?

Today, All God is asking that 2/3's to make the commitment to him by standing against the sin we are slaves to. he know we can not live sin free lives, but at the same time we can not love or embrace our sin either we must live in opposition to it. And let Jesus' atonement carry us the rest of the way.

[The Grand Nudger]

Today, All God is asking that 2/3's to make the commitment to him by standing against the sin we are slaves to. he know we can not live sin free lives, but at the same time we can not love or embrace our sin either we must live in opposition to it. And let Jesus' atonement carry us the rest of the way.

...the greatest "sin" imaginable.

Attempting to pay for a moral debt in blood money only incurs an even greater debt. Your god may be incapable of love..so I can understand why it wouldn;t know that. What;s your excuse, lol?

[Neo-Scholastic]

You are talking about different things like they are one. God loves you no matter what you do or what condition you are in. It is his Holiness that can't accommodate sin that has not been atoned for. It is his Justice the defines the punishment for lacking that atonement at the end of your life.

That sounds like he's the one that needs to change. Not us.

Some parents make their kids take their muddy shoes off before they enter the house. That doesn't mean the parents don't love their kids.